Rashmi Shukla moves HC for quashing of FIR in phone tapping case

Shukla is accused of tapping the phone calls of Shiv Sena leader Sanjay Raut and NCP leader Eknath Khadse.

Mumbai: IPS officer Rashmi Shukla has approached the Bombay high court seeking quashing of the FIR registered against her at Colaba police station for alleged illegal phone tapping. In the petition, Shukla has claimed that the FIR was lodged with malafide intent and was politically motivated and hence sought an urgent hearing. The HC will hear the petition on Friday.

Shukla, former commissioner of the State Intelligence Department, Maharashtra has been named in another FIR which was registered at Pune in connection with the alleged illegal phone tapping of state Congress president Nana Patole. (Sanket Wankhade/HT PHOTO)

According to the petition, filed through advocate Sameer Nangre, the complaint was lodged at the behest of Additional Commissioner of Police (Special Branch) Rajiv Jain wherein she is accused of tapping the phone calls of Shiv Sena leader Sanjay Raut and NCP leader Eknath Khadse.

Shukla is booked under section 165 (public servant obtaining any valuable thing, without consideration, from a person concerned in any proceeding or business transacted by such public servant) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 26 of the Telegraph Act.

On Thursday senior advocate Mahesh Jethmalani mentioned the petition before the division bench of justice Prasanna Varale and justice Shriram Modak and sought an urgent hearing. The bench allowed the same and posted the hearing of the petition to Friday.

Shukla, former commissioner of the State Intelligence Department, Maharashtra has been named in another FIR which was registered at Pune in connection with the alleged illegal phone tapping of state Congress president Nana Patole. The complaint states that Shukla misused her position as the Commissioner of Police, Pune during the term of the previous government to tap the calls of Patole claiming that the number belonged to a man dealing in narcotics.

On March 4, while granting her protection from arrest till March 25 in that case, HC had observed that “prima facie” there was a delay in registering the FIR and though there were other officers involved in the process of obtaining sanction for surveillance of the number, only Shukla’s name was mentioned in the FIR.